Posted on 05/01/2010 1:22:30 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
“But my conclusions are FWIW,”
I’ve followed the conversation but cannot follow this basic sentence.
FWIW, I’m not supporting your position, but I want to know! Your conclusions are...?
Obvious to many is you are not a “leftest” troll. Many would like to see whether there is a silver lining to your thought process.
Elevator story, anyone? Once upon a time...Elevator story is about an elevator operator who loves his job and all that rot. One day, at work, an important person got into the elevator. And then...
Where do your stories go?
Is the world just a messed up place? Does the story “Oliver”, end in an orphanage? Is the “Sound Of Music” just gonna end in a Dirge?
Are you telling us that there is no good reason to be working on the problem of the United States being hijacked by a nobody from Chicago, the seat of organized crime who has no history except a couple of books written by a unibomber?
Ms. Rogerette has been told that he is out of his element on this issue.
We agree.
You cut out part of what I said in a deceptive attempt to make your case. I said ““My argument, as you well know, is that a fact known to the voters, Rush Limbaugh, JD Hayworth, Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, Sarah Palin, his opponents, the states, the Congress and the Supreme Court cannot disqualify Obama after the fact.”
The fact referenced was the citizenship of Obama’s father. That was known before he began his run.
HOWEVER, if he concealed a foreign birth, which everyone admits would disqualify him, then all bets are off. He then became President under false pretenses, and Congress should (and I believe would) remove him from office.
It is wrong to cut & paste to pretend your opponent said something different. That is lying.
“Rush and Hayward have questioned Obama’s legitimacy like how about seeing Obama’s real birth certificate?”
And that is different that what I said that they rejected - that Obama is not the legitimate President because of his father’s citizenship.
Here is the exact quote:
“If you have evidence that JD Hayworth believes Obama is disqualified from being President because of his father’s citizenship, please post it.
If you believe Rush Limbaugh thinks Obama is disqualified from being President because of his father’s citizenship, post it.”
You haven’t. Nor can you, because neither has ever said that Obama is not qualified to be President because of his father’s citizenship. Neither has Sarah Palin, nor any member of Congress or state official or court.
You need to stop lying about what I have said. It is a matter of record, and lying makes you look like you don’t have the brains God gave a goose.
No.
One thing that is important to note here is motive.
Why would anyone consistently argue with people such as yourself and others (I was going to list names but then figured I’d have to courtesy ping them all and prefer not to bother them, they know who they are!) about the non-eligibility of 0bama?
What is their reason for bitching and whining and name calling and chasing their tails and obfuscating and beating dead horses?
To get to the truth? No, because all any of them do is try to refute over and over what others say even when they are proven wrong multiple times, and they aren’t doing any research of their own to find out the truth of his eligibility.
To harry others just for the fun of it? Some have admitted that.
Because they support 0thugga? Obviously for some, and quite a few of those have been banned.
I think Mr. Rogers should be asked what is his motive.
“Birthers are a huge waste of time.”
Response; “Perhaps you should direct that comment to the person who posted and wrote this thread, you know, the owner of this site.....”
(387 posted on 05/03/2010 11:53:01 AM PDT by Las Vegas Ron [(”Because without America, there is no free world” - Canada Free Press - MSM, where are you?)]
Your reply was missed. I re post the exchange here, and now. Awaiting ...
By the way, where in the Constitution does it say that , “ Birthers are a huge waste of time. Even if Zero had been born in Mombasa of a tramp from Liverpool and BHO, Sr., it would still require a majority of the House and two thirds of the Senate to remove him (Chief Justice Roberts, in his best robes, presiding, but not voting, of course). “ ?
Whatever, does this, arguing against the majority opinion, suit you?
You cut out part of what I said in a deceptive attempt to make your case.
No it was not deceptive. I only shortened your statement to make it easier for you to understand. I said the same thing in the previous post to you with all your words intact. And anyone could look up the thread and see what you wrote in that your post.
The fact referenced was the citizenship of Obama’s father. That was known before he began his run.
To quote the esteemed Supreme Court Justice Thomas, "We are evading the issue." Yes, not only has the Supreme Court evaded the eligibility issue so has the other courts
his opponents, the states, the Congress and the Supreme Court cannot disqualify Obama after the fact.”
And again, as I pointed out to you Congress or Supreme Court can "disqualify" Obama after the "fact." I did not say talking heads on radio and tv could disqualify Obama from office.
“Rush and Hayward have questioned Obama’s legitimacy like how about seeing Obama’s real birth certificate?”
The questioned was answered satisfactory above. They have questioned Obama legitimacy, which could include them questioning about the jus sanguinis issue. Because they have not elucidated it to you does not mean they don't think it is not legitimate question.
You haven’t. Nor can you, because neither has ever said that Obama is not qualified to be President because of his father’s citizenship. Neither has Sarah Palin, nor any member of Congress or state official or court.
I never said they did and I have explain to you why. The reason are numerous mostly because of the overwhelming liberal press ridicule they would receive if the did. Alinsky rule number 1 is it? How about Obama show his real birth certificate in a court of law? So what sorry excuse can you make for Obama?
You need to stop lying about what I have said. It is a matter of record, and lying makes you look like you don’t have the brains God gave a goose.
I don't have lie and I am not lying, and you are acting like the village idiot here. I've explained things to you that you will not acknowledge or you refuse to understand.
It is the behavior of a zealot, Obot troll.
What is their reason for bitching and whining and name calling and chasing their tails and obfuscating and beating dead horses?
He gets off on it? Or to other obvious reasons.
He hasn’t answered me about his motive yet.
We have the motives of a few who have let it slip out. One who admitted to being a paid and on a salary Obot troll. Another who married a foreign wife and so wants his child to be a natural born citizen.
A couple of them admitted they get their jollies by harassing the threads. And several were no doubt paid operatives who are now dead and gone - Michael Michael/Ender, the guy who claimed he forged the BC, gosh - tons have gotten banned actually. Some DU trolls.
It's all laid out in Article I. The House has the sole power to impeach, and the Senate the sole power to try an impeachment and remove the President. And when the President is the defendant, the Chief Justice presides over the festivities and counts the votes to make sure there are two-thirds.
The Supreme Court does not get to remove the President, even if the case is open and shut. Which this one isn't. First, it's pretty clear he was born in Hawaii. And, second, if they were ever to take up directly the question of who is a natural born citizen, it is very likely they would conclude it is simply anyone who was a citizen at birth. Even if they were to support some version of Vattel's definition, at this point, they'd have to sell it to Nancy and Harry and the requisite number of critters in the two houses of Congress.
I posted it in 313 on this thread...if you actually cared. But like Red Steel, you are dishonest - so why waste time replying to either of you?
I don’t read your regurgitations, so I didn’t read that. I’ll go read it now.
1 - I thought Lakin will have his butt handed to him, and said so. Within minutes, I was attacked as a traitorous troll who hates America. That made it personal.
2 - Reading the cases has been enlightening. I strongly disagree with how the courts have ruled in many areas, but it doesn’t help anyone to ignore what they have ruled. When someone says ‘Everyone KNOWS the Founder’s relied on Vattel’s definition’, they ignore both the facts and the case history - and that is a good way to lose future cases.
1. You were posting on the eligibility threads long before Lakin was on the radar.
2. Nonsense - there are many here who have legal backgrounds, and/or are working attorneys, and/or have done their research, and have proved you wrong over and over and over again. So you’re saying you “just want to help”?
Don’t make me laugh.
Plus, Vattal is but one small point of discussion. I detect you are not telling your real motives.
I’ve been accurate to you. You just don’t like to hear it.
“1. You were posting on the eligibility threads long before Lakin was on the radar.”
Nope. I got involved when I posted on a Lakin thread.
“have proved you wrong over and over and over again.”
Not hardly. Those who have proved me wrong have been shown to BE wrong in case after case. Birthers are still waiting for a win. Or a Congressman who will support them. Or a state official or legislature.
They claim Obama is ineligible for office because of his father - yet it was all known, and that argument rejected by the states, voters, McCain, the GOP, Sarah Palin, Coulter, Malkin, Rush, the Electoral College, Congress and ignored by the Supreme Court.
This is explained as a conspiracy, such as the conspiracy to make McCain the candidate. All those voters who voted for McCain...not me, I loathe him and campaigned for Fred Thompson and then voted for Romney to try to block McCain in Arizona...but all those voters? Just imaginary. It was really party bosses pulling strings.
Meanwhile, Red Steel imagines Rush and others support him because...well, because they could, they just don’t because they are keeping it secret.
Y’all live in fantasy land, which is probably why you don’t mind lying about what others have written.
All of you who still concentrate on proving Barack Obama is Constitutionally eligible for the Presidency miss the point. No law requires the Electors to elect only a Constitutionally eligible President. Indeed, several states have enacted laws requiring Electors to vote for the party nominee. (No “faithless Elector” has ever been prosecuted.) (These laws demonstrate, citizens CAN enact laws telling the (party chosen) Electors to vet for Constitutional eligibility.) However, laws in several states require only eligible candidates can have their names printed on the ballot. The real question is, on what documentary basis did members of the D party - Nancy Pelosi, Alice Germond, Boyd Richie, or Kathy Hensley (SC D party state Treasurer) - Certify to state election officials candidate Obama was Constitutionally qualified for the job, to get those officials to print his name on the ballot? These are the people the state should be pursuing. That’s why we filed citizen complaints of election fraud against these D’s with state A’sG in applicable states. http://jbjd.wordpress.com
I disagree. Failure to properly define and address an issue in a timely manner after full discovery of the facts (such as Obama’s intentionally withheld HI contemporaneous vital records and access to witnesses in Kenya and HI) does not equate to “that argument rejected by...”
Let me refer you to the following FR link:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2504335/posts?q=1&;page=1
At this link are links to four youtube videos by Dr. Ronald Polland in which he shows an extensive collection of webshots of news stories during the 2008 campaign.
The clear evidence from these webshots is that the Obama campaign and their MSM Factcheck and Politifact enablers successfully conducted a black propaganda psyops disinformation campaign against the US electorate which framed McCain's NBC status as a BIG ISSUE and Obama’s NBC status as a NON-ISSUE (his precious “historic” candidacy was too good to check).
Obama may not have been a constitutional scholar but he and his campaign had years to get the jump on the media and opposition with claims that Wong Kim Ark was on-point with Obama’s public biography and was settled law.
The WKA ruling is not at all on point with Obama’s alleged bio and the ruling explicitly declines to define NBC, a statement likely inserted to refute the claim in the dissent that Wong was being made eligible to be president.
I am a little surprised that you have claimed to be amused by my suggestion that your posting pattern could raise suspicions. I am assuming that you are fully familiar with Army as well as CIA psyops.
“Psychological operations are planned operations to convey selected information and indicators to foreign audiences to influence their emotions, motives, objective reasoning, and ultimately the behavior of foreign governments, organizations, groups, and individuals.[1]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_Operations_(United_States)
It has doubtless not escaped the attention of the Obama Admin. and DOD that troop morale is lower than desired and approval of Obama and confidence in his legitimacy is also slipping as the Afghanistan push approaches.
It is illegal for the Army and CIA to conduct psyops against US citizens except in cases of “emergency.” But the skill-set and experience in applying these political manipulation techniques is there in the Army and CIA personnel. At a minimum, when those personnel retire or are not actively deployed, their skills could be solicited and employed by non-government entities to manipulate target portions of the US public.
Entities who could be hiring retired or non-active psyops-trained Army/CIA personnel could be cut-outs with plausible deniablility to US govenment entities or funded by parties with specific agendas. These agendas could be political or economic.
Of concern to me are advisers close to Obama who have declared that “conspiracy theories” should be actively suppressed in the media and on the internet blogs using paid operatives to post comments refuting what the government determines to be conspiracy theories. There appears to be circumstantial evidence that bloggers and commenters who investigate theories and share them have even been targeted with trojan viruses to cripple their computers in a kind of internet sniper attack.
WKA has been the linchpin of what I consider to be the psyops campaign by Obama’s team and if the DOJ/DIA felt that protecting Obama’s legitimacy for the troops was an emergency, then protecting WKA becomes a fight to the death.
LTC Lankin’s act of conscience may have generated an underground wave of support in active duty troops both in internet buzz and financial contributions that the WH/DOJ/DOD may be monitoring.
It is not hard to anticipate that a psyops operation might have been launched to post comments on sites where Lakin has some support, such as FR. An operative with prior posting history would be perfect.
The psyops operatives would post comments that would attempt to mock Lakin by claiming that WKA is settled law and validates Obama’s legitimacy because SCOTUS and the political establishment could have contested Obama’s NBC status, but didn't.
The psyops operative would attempt to delegitimize Lakin by accusing him of dishonorably attempting to avoid deployment.
Of course, this may have nothing to do with you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.